Search

Aims: Drug tolerability refers to the degree to which drugs' overt adverse effects can be tolerated by patients. The tolerability profile is of comparative importance to its efficacy and safety, as it largely determines adherence to treatment and ultimately treatment success or failure. However, the term is frequently used imprecisely, and it is unclear if tolerability is limited to subjective patient‐reported symptoms or also covers certain objective signs and findings. The aim of this systematic review was to assess how clinical studies define, evaluate and present drug tolerability. Methods: The study consisted of a systematic review of clinical studies in PubMed® reporting the term "tolerability". Results: Eighty clinical studies were screened and 56 studies reporting drug tolerability were retained. None of the retained studies defined events encompassed by the term tolerability by making a distinction between safety and tolerability. Twenty‐five studies claimed to evaluate tolerability, but none of them described how to evaluate tolerability from the patient perspective. Most studies (54 out of 56) concluded that the treatment was well tolerated, apparently implying favourable safety. However, none of them actually presented tolerability in terms of a contrast between safety and tolerability. Conclusions: Tolerability is used frequently, albeit incorrectly, to refer to a drug's favourable safety profile. Focused evaluation of drug tolerability (i.e., the patient perspective of adverse drug reactions) should become routine. Presentation in regulatory documents, such as risk management plan summaries, product information and patient leaflets should be a continuation of the process of patient‐centred healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Nocebo refers to adverse events related to patients' negative expectations and previous experiences, mediated by several neurobiological pathways within the brain. It is common among neurological patients and affects adherence and treatment outcomes, representing a real clinical challenge. Methods: We conducted a systematic search based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines in MEDLINE database, using several keywords for studies that can be processed to investigate the magnitude of nocebo in generics and biosimilars used in the most common neurological diseases. The aim was to estimate its size and suggest strategies to minimize its prevalence in clinical trials and practice. Results: Of a total of 2,606 identified articles, after criteria-based selection, 35 studies were included for analysis. Overall, there was vast heterogeneity across the studies concerning population, study design, and outcomes. Nocebo response could be estimated only in one double-blind randomized trial of generic glatiramer acetate in relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis that included a placebo arm. In this trial, no significant differences observed between the three arms (innovator, bioequivalent, and placebo) in favorable and unfavorable outcomes. In the open-label phase of the trial, an increased withdrawal rate was recorded in patients switched from placebo to bioequivalent (8.4%) that may be related to nocebo. In other open-label and real-world studies evaluating biosimilars or generics for brain disorders, a similar indirect nocebo effect is assuming by several investigators. Also, knowledge gaps between health-care providers and patients exist towards generics and biosimilars. Conclusions: Despite its presence, the true burden of the nocebo response and effect cannot be accurately estimated in existing studies with generics and biosimilars in neurological diseases. Targeted strategies for clinical trials' design are needed in order to measure the exact nocebo's size. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Nocebo refers to adverse events (AEs) related to negative expectations that medical treatment will likely harm instead of heal and can be assessed in placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials (RCTs). We sought to examine the AEs following placebo administration in RCTs for depression (D). After a systematic Medline search for RCTs in depression published in the last decade we assessed percentages of placebo-treated patients reporting at least one AE or discontinuing due to placebo intolerance and searched for factors influencing nocebo's extent. Data were extracted from 21 RCTs fulfilling search criteria. Of 3255 placebo-treated patients, 44.7% (95% CI: 22.3–68.3%) reported at least one AE, and 4.5% (95% CI: 3.4–5.8%) discontinued placebo treatment due to intolerance. AE rates in placebo and active drug treated patients were correlated quantitatively (r=0.915, p<0.001) and qualitatively, but not dropout rates (r=0.047). We conclude that almost one out of 20 placebo treated patients discontinued treatment due to AEs, indicating a significant nocebo in trials for depression treatment adversely affecting adherence and efficacy of current treatments in clinical practice, with additional implications for trial designing. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The aim was to determine the magnitude of the nocebo (adverse effects following placebo administration) in clinical trials for primary headache disorders. We reviewed randomized, placebo-controlled studies for migraine, tension-type headache (TTH), and cluster headache treatments published between 1998 and 2009. The frequency of nocebo was estimated by the percentage of placebo-treated patients reporting at least one adverse side effect. The dropout frequency was estimated by the percentage of placebo-treated patients who discontinued the treatment due to intolerance. In studies of symptomatic treatment for migraine, the nocebo and dropout frequencies were 18.45% and 0.33%, but rose to 42.78% and 4.75% in preventative treatment studies. In trials for prevention of TTH, nocebo and dropout frequencies were 23.99% and 5.44%. For symptomatic treatment of cluster headache, the nocebo frequency was 18.67%. Nocebo is prevalent in clinical trials for primary headaches, particularly in preventive treatment studies. Dropouts due to nocebo effect may confound the interpretation of many clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Among healthcare workers (HCWs), SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy may be linked to a higher susceptibility to nocebo effects, i.e., adverse events (AEs) experienced after medical treatments due to negative expectations. To investigate this hypothesis a cross-sectional survey was performed with a self-completed questionnaire that included a tool (Q-No) for the identification of nocebo-prone individuals. A total of 1309 HCWs (67.2% women; 43.4% physicians; 28.4% nurses; 11.5% administrative staff; 16.6% other personnel) completed the questionnaires, among whom 237 (18.1%) had declined vaccination. Q-No scores were ≥15 in 325 participants (24.8%) suggesting nocebo-prone behavior. In a multivariate logistic regression model with Q-No score, age, gender, and occupation as independent variables, estimated odds ratios (ORs) of vaccination were 0.43 (i.e., less likely, p < 0.001) in participants with Q-No score ≥ 15 vs. Q-No score < 15, 0.58 in females vs. males (p = 0.013), and 4.7 (i.e., more likely) in physicians vs. other HCWs (p < 0.001), independent of age, which was not significantly associated with OR of vaccination. At least one adverse effect (AE) was reported by 67.5% of vaccinees, mostly local pain and flu-like symptoms. In a multivariate logistic regression model, with Q-No score, age, gender, and occupation as independent variables, estimated ORs of AE reporting were 2.0 in females vs. males (p < 0.001) and 1.47 in physicians vs. other HCWs (p = 0.017) independently of age and Q-No score, which were not significantly associated with OR of AE. These findings suggest that nocebo-prone behavior in HCWs is associated with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination hesitancy indicating a potential benefit of a campaign focused on nocebo-prone people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aim: Despite recent publications, practitioners remain unfamiliar with the current terminology related to the placebo and nocebo phenomena observed in clinical trials and practice, nor with the factors that modulate them. To cover the gap, the European Headache Federation appointed a panel of experts to clarify the terms associated with the use of placebo in clinical trials. Methods: The working group identified relevant questions and agreed upon recommendations. Because no data were required to answer the questions, the GRADE approach was not applicable, and thus only expert opinion was provided according to an amended Delphi method. The initial 12 topics for discussion were revised in the opinion of the majority of the panelists, and after a total of 6 rounds of negotiations, the final agreement is presented. Results/recommendations: Two primary and mechanism-based recommendations are provided for the results of clinical trials: [1] to distinguish the placebo or nocebo response from the placebo or nocebo effect; and [2] for any favorable outcome observed after placebo administration, the term "placebo response" should be used, and for any unfavorable outcome recorded after placebo administration, the term "nocebo response" should be used (12 out of 17 panelists agreed, 70.6% agreement). The placebo or nocebo responses are attributed to a set of factors including those that are related to the medical condition (e.g. natural history, random comorbidities, etc.), along with idiosyncratic ones, in which the placebo or nocebo effects are attributed to idiosyncratic, or nonspecific mechanisms, exclusively (e.g. expectation, conditioning, observational learning etc.). To help investigators and practitioners, the panel summarized a list of environmental factors and idiosyncratic dynamics modulating placebo and nocebo effects. Some of them are modifiable, and investigators or physicians need to know about them in order to modify these factors appropriately to improve treatment. One secondary recommendation addresses the use of the terms "placebo" and "nocebo" ("placebos" and "nocebos" in plural), which refer to the triggers of the placebo/nocebo effects or responses, respectively, and which are inert agents or interventions that should not be confused with the placebo/nocebo responses or effects themselves (all panelists agreed, 100% agreement). Conclusion: The working group recommends distinguishing the term response from effect to describe health changes from before to after placebo application and to distinguish the terms placebo(s) or nocebo(s) from the health consequences that they cause (placebo/nocebo responses or effects). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Nocebo is linked to low adherence. • In MS trials nocebo is prevalent and increase by year of trial publication. • Nocebo is more frequent and more severe in oral DMTs than in newer injectables. • In RCTs with oral DMTs 8% of placebo treated patients withdrawn due to safety. • Treatment failure and intolerance may be partly powered by nocebo in MS practice. Nocebo phenomena are linked to decreased adherence to treatments in clinical practice as well as difficulty in assessing the adverse effect profile in clinical trials. To estimate the incidence and severity of nocebo responses in clinical trials of oral and newer injectable disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) for relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS). Meta-analysis of the incidence of nocebo responses was performed by pooling the percentage of placebo-treated patients that exhibited adverse events (AEs) in randomized, placebo-controlled MS trials published between 2005 and 2018. Nocebo severity was estimated as a percentage of placebo-treated patients who discontinued the treatment due to drug-related AEs. The pooled incidence of nocebo was 89% (95% CI: 88%–90%) in trials for oral DMTs (cladribine, fingolimod, teriflunomide and dimethyl fumarate) and 66% (95% CI: 51%–80%) in trials of newer injectable DMTs (biosimilar glatiramer acetate 20 mg, innovator glatiramer acetate 40 mg and pegylated interferon beta). The pooled nocebo severity was 8% (95% CI: 5%–12%) for oral treatments and 2% (95% CI: 0–2%) for newer injectable DMTs. Oral DMTs may be associated with a higher incidence and greater nocebo severity than newer injectables. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• The pooled nocebo-related dropout rate is on average 4 % in the placebo arm of drug trials of subcutaneous anti-osteoporotic drugs. • Daily administration is associated with a higher rate of nocebo-related dropout. • Higher rates of nocebo-related dropouts are seen in older men with a history of fracture. Nocebo is a concept of therapeutics referring to unpleasant symptoms attributed by a patient to a drug, due to negative anticipation. Patients receiving oral anti-osteoporotic drugs in randomized controlled trials (RCT) can experience adverse events leading to dropout, implying that nocebo contributes to treatment discontinuation for these drugs. In this study we aim to investigate the nocebo effect of subcutaneous anti-osteoporotic drugs with a higher compliance rate than orally administered drugs. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases for double-blind trials investigating subcutaneous anti-osteoporotic drugs for osteoporosis (namely, denosumab, teriparatide, abaloparatide and romosozumab) published up to May 2023. Dropouts due to reported adverse events in the placebo arms ("nocebo dropouts"). Data from 17 trials were extracted. Among 10,529 placebo-treated patients the pooled nocebo-dropout percentage was 3 % for denosumab (average: 0.03; 95 % CI: 0.01–0.05), 1 % for romosozumab (average: 0.01; 95 % CI: 0.00–0.03) and 6 % for teriparatide and abaloparatide (average: 0.06; 95 % CI: 0.05–0.07). Nocebo-dropouts were significantly higher in men than women (6 % vs. 3 %, respectively, p = 0.012), in older (mean age >68 years) than in younger patients (5 % vs. 1 %, respectively, p = 0.017) and in those with more severe osteoporosis (based on the percentage of participants with prior fragility-related fractures in the study cohort) compared with patients with no prior fracture history (4 % vs. 1 %, respectively, p = 0.046). Nocebo responses may contribute to treatment discontinuation with subcutaneous anti-osteoporotic drugs in clinical practice. Higher nocebo-related dropout rates in the higher-risk RCT population (older patients, males, those with prior fractures) show that nocebo mechanisms have the potential to hinder therapeutic efforts to specific populations who would benefit most. Prospero registration number CRD42020212843. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]